On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 09:41:07PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Friday, May 10, 2013 17:14:01 H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 05:09:18PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > > > On 5/10/2013 4:27 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > >Seriously, D has so spoiled me I can't stand programming in another > > > >language these days. :-P > > > > > > Me too. Sometimes it makes it hard to work on the dmd front end! > > > > Now, *that* is not a good thing at all! When are we going to start > > moving towards bootstrapping D? Did any conclusions ever come of > > that discussion some time ago about how this might impact GDC/LDC? > > Daniel Murphy (yebblies) has an automated C++ to D converted for the > front-end that he's been working on (which won't work on general C++ > code but works on the front-end's code), and he's been making pull > requests to dmd to adjust the code so that it's more easily converted. > So, once he's done with that, it'll be trivial to have the same > compiler in both C++ and D (with all of the changes going in the C++ > code), and we can maintain it that way until we're ready to go pure D. > And after that, we can start refactoring the D code and take advantage > of what D can do. [...]
Excellent!! What about GDC/LDC though? Or are we hoping that the GCC (LDC) maintainers will be willing to accept a bootstrapping D compiler by the time we're ready to go pure D? T -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
